Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 200,000.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, the Defendants did not pay the fine.

Punishment of the crime

On October 11, 2014, around 10:00, the Defendants entered the victim F-owned Do and E victim F-owned Dom on October 11, 2014 and jointly invaded on the victim's residence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. A certified copy of the register (referring to 2-1 books, No. 9-22 of investigation records);

1. A report on investigation (on-site photographs, and on-site records No. 24 pages of the investigation records);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the investigation report (the Act, No. 60-62 page 2-2 of the on-site photographs and investigation records);

1. Article 2(2) and (1)1 of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016); Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Reasons for conviction under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act against the order of provisional payment;

1. The Defendants asserted that they entered the victim F's family adjacent to his adjacent service to the victim F's family, and thus there is no intention to intrude into the residence.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it can be acknowledged that all of the land D and E, including the land at Sacheon-si H and the cross-rises above the ground, and the buildings attached thereto, were owned by the victim F. The Defendants entered the above D and E, and the buildings, such as a coverter, stable, attached company, etc., in order to view the cover pool located within each of the above land and E, and that the Defendants entered the said place to view the cover pool located within each of the above D and E, and that the buildings, such as a coverter, stable, attached company, etc., in which a cover pool is located, are the buildings of others managed by the owner or manager. In full view of the above facts acknowledged, the Defendants’ intentional intent can be acknowledged as to the fact that the Defendants’ act of entering the cover pool in the building located within the building of others constitutes intrusion upon the building of others.

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion cannot be accepted.